What is the value of ‘retribution’?

By Brent Patterson
The Chronicle Herald, January 28, 2007

Canada’s war in Afghanistan has been justified several ways since Prime Minister Stephen Harper extended the mission early last year. Depending whom you speak to, and when, our troops are fighting and dying to protect Canadians from terrorism, to protect women and children from the Taliban, or to bring democracy to Afghanistan.

But last week, our government revealed a more cynical approach that should have all Canadians doubting the motivation for our excursion into Afghanistan – and its chance of success. Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor says Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan as "retribution" for 9-11; in other words, we’re there to get even.

Recent media reports about the war have noted a trend of escalating violence in Afghanistan, a projected increase in the number of Canadian military casualties, the rising costs of the war, and analysis that the country is "sliding into chaos."

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry, thinks the coming months of the war will be particularly violent. This would mesh with U.S. military statistics which show that in 2006, there were 4,542 direct attacks by the Taliban with guns, grenades and other weapons – up from 558 in 2005. Also in 2006, there were 1,677 roadside bomb explosions – up from 783 in 2005.

Our own military brass is also estimating that there will be 200 Canadian military casualties between this February and August – a marked increase from the 190 casualties reported for all of 2006. News reports from last October noted that of those 190, 65 soldiers had to be medically evacuated back to Canada. Commander David Wilcox, the senior military physician in Atlantic Canada, recently said that 60 of the anticipated 200 casualties before August will be severe enough to require transportation back to Canada.

As the human costs go up, so will the financial costs for Canada. According to CBC reports, military costs in Afghanistan reached $1.8 billion in May 2006, or about $1.45 million per day of the mission. That’s expected to exceed $3 billion by 2009, says the CBC. But even our government admits that’s low-balling it. O’Connor himself has put the cost by 2009 at $4 billion, which would nearly double the daily price to $2.7 million.

So what do we have to show for this increased commitment?

Certainly our government is not telling our troops everything it knows. Speaking at CFB Gagetown recently, O’Connor said that the lives of Afghans were improving and that, "These are real achievements and as the progress continues, the momentum will build and the chances of the Taliban regaining their hold on this country will be more and more remote." These statements stand in stark contrast with credible accounts of the so-called progress.

A new article in the international journal Foreign Affairs warns that Afghanistan is "sliding into chaos" and that the NATO-led mission will fail without a dramatic change in strategy that includes getting serious about that country’s poverty and other economic and social issues.

So far, the Conservative government has been extremely guarded as to exactly where its foreign aid is going in Afghanistan. Contributions are expected to reach $1 billion by 2011 and yet an eight-person, all-party Commons defence committee visiting Afghanistan last week was banned from seeing how much of that money is going towards reconstruction, and how much might also be slated for "retribution."

O’Connor’s misrepresentation of the situation in Afghanistan puts serious doubts on his ability to handle a war that has already claimed the lives of 44 Canadian soldiers, and that is projected to kill or maim another 200 by August.

The Harper government ran on a platform of accountability. Yet Harper and his ministers continue to be evasive about the true costs of war, the real chances of success and exactly where all our reconstruction money is going in Afghanistan.

Getting even with the Taliban might make our defence minister feel better, but according to recent evidence, it will achieve nothing in the long run.

Rather than misleading Canadian troops who deployed from Edmonton, Atlantic Canada and Ontario last week, O’Connor should be honest about the situation they will be facing when they reach Afghanistan – you would think he owes that much to the men and women who are prepared to sacrifice their lives there.

If not, perhaps the Canadian public will seek their own "retribution" at the ballot box.

Brent Patterson is the director of organizing at the Council of Canadians.

SECTIONS